For those not aware, packing the court in this context refers to expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court so that whoever's in power can nominate judges they prefer to the newly-created seats, thereby creating a favorable majority for them where there might not have been one previously. It was attempted once in 1937, but failed, and has not been attempted since.

As for term limits, Supreme Court justices have none; the position is for life. The reasoning for this is primarily so that they can't be influenced as easily for political gain, as they've already achieved the final step in their careers.

Personally, the concept of court-packing has worried me no matter who does it, because from what I can tell (though granted I've not researched this), the Supreme Court has thus far done a decent job of avoiding partisanship; I'm concerned packing the courts would damage this precedent. I do believe that term limits could work, though I suspect they'd require a clause prohibiting justices from holding any jobs after their term expires, lest they become politically influenced by down-the-line job offers.

That said, what's your take?

^{(By the way, CGP Grey has a great video on some parts of the Supreme Court if you're interested in learning more about it)}

This thread is posted daily - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

This thread is posted daily - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

I have tried to answer this myself and come up empty handed. When a U.S. president leaves office, they take intimate awareness of many national secrets with them (weapons systems, intelligence gathering techniques, etc.). What prevents a former president from selling this information to the highest bidder?

A thread you can easily ignore

A new week a new thread

As the pace and the quantity of information that is coming out of the election increases. Instead of creating a new post for everything, or not posting things because it is a smaller item, please feel free to post here.
Feel free to break out any information posted here into its own thread if the discussion warrants it.

Major news can/should be broken out into its own topic. (use your own discretion)

Final thread before the election

Race called by Decision Desk HQ at 08:50 AM EST: https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1324710866516905984

Other sources will follow as there is no path back for Donald Trump to win PA.

Update #1: Called by Business Insider
Update #2: Called by Vox (thanks @dubteedub)
Update #3: The Economist is coming as close as they can to calling it (explanation: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1324860925745229824)
Update #4: The AP, NBC, CNN and ABC News have called the race. It's over.
Update #5: New York Times, BBC
Update #6: Meanwhile in Trump's fantasy land
Update #7: Fox News has called it as well.